RE: [CH] question for a big brain
Mary & Riley (uGuys@ChileGarden.com)
Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:27:39 -0700
>
> No amount of plant crossing will put a fish gene into a
> tomato, but gene
> spicing can.
No, but it (traditional breeding) can produce a caustic celery that
causes your hands to blister. Fact.
Another fact. Gene transfer between unrelated species occurs in nature
via viri and bacteria. So it looks like it's natural after all.
> People who are proponents of genetic modification claim that
> they know what
> they are doing, but such claims are absurd. No-one knows everything,
> especially about living organisms.
True. And people didn't know the implications of Boolean algebra until
it was applied to computers. So what? We need to be careful with new
technology. The lesson of the 20th century. Duh. But I do agree that
better controls need to be put in place for GMOs. But it also seems
that industry has been fairly careful about it so far. Let's keep it
that way.
Whoever said in this thread that use of pesticides hasn't caused
extinctions doesn't know what they're talking about. It has, and not
just in insects. Birds, amphibians, reptiles and mammals are extinct
now. (Not all due to pesticides by any means.) The extinction rate now
is higher than any time in recorded history, probably since the last
major extinction event.
Which is a good argument for pursuing gene engineering. The
minimization of pesticide use.
>
> Companies don't genetically modify plants to make them taste
> better, they do
> it to make money.
Uh, they make them taste better to make money. Yup.
Except in the case of Golden Rice--they are donating that product. And
replant and harvest seed. Sadly, one of the companies that was working
on it in Britain went out of business due to the GM foes, iirc. And
therefore delayed people getting it. And as far as I'm concerned, have
caused the (unnecessary) deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.
So who has blood on their hands?
>
> If you want genetically modified products, fine, but don't
> force them on
> those who don't, and don't hide them by refusing to label
> them as such.
>
> Tom
Should we label that caustic, traditionally breed celery? (It wasn't
put on the market, btw. Scientific American, March 2001
http://www.sciam.com/2001/0401issue/0401hopkin.html )
A recent survey stated that after being informed that more than half the
foods on the shelves are GMOs, something like 70% of Americans said they
didn't mind. I'm paraphrasing and may have the number wrong--but it was
a large majority.
So hopefully maybe those kids can get that rice now.
Riley